VANDEMATRAM NAGARI SAHAKARI PATASANSTHA MARAYADIT,RAIGAD vs. ITO, WARD 4, PANVEL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1108/PUN/2023Status: HeardITAT Pune12 December 20233 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal affirmed the addition of Rs. 12 lakhs as unexplained income. The assessee failed to provide evidence to explain the source of these remaining cash deposits, despite partial relief granted by the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns cash deposits of Rs. 12 lakhs treated as unexplained income. Initially, the Assessing Officer added Rs. 56.40 lakhs, but the CIT(A) granted relief of Rs. 44.40 lakhs, confirming the remaining Rs. 12 lakhs.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits of Rs. 12 lakhs can be treated as the assessee's undisclosed income. The primary issue is the assessee's failure to explain the source of these deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Hearing: 12.12.2023Pronounced: 12.12.2023

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011- 2012, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short [the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055670242(1), dated 01.09.2023, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. The very factual position had existed on the earlier

2 ITA.No.1108/PUN./2023 hearing(s) as well. We thus proceed ex-parte against the assessee.

2.

We now come to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance challenging correctness of both the learned lower authorities action treating cash deposits of Rs.12 lakhs as it’s undisclosed/unexplained income. It emerges from a perusal of the Assessing Officer’s assessment dated 19.12.2018 that he had first initiated sec.148/147 proceedings and then proceeded to add the assessee’s entire cash deposits of Rs.56.40 lakhs [wrongly incorporated as Rs.5 lakhs in para-4]. The assessee filed it’s lower appeal coupled with additional evidence i.e., M/s. Saraswat Co-op. Bank’s clarification dated 19.01.2019 that the twin deposits of Rs.22.20 lakhs each; both dated 31.03.2012, had not been made in it’s name. The CIT(A) has thereafter granted relief of Rs.44.40 lakhs in very terms and confirmed the balance amount of Rs.12 lakhs in assessee’s hands. It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee seeks to delete the impugned balance addition amount of Rs.12 lakhs as well.

3.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s vehement contentions supporting the impugned addition and see no merit in the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance. This is for the precise reason that it has not been able to explain the source of the impugned remaining

3 ITA.No.1108/PUN./2023 cash deposit of Rs.12 lakhs since the CIT(A) has already granted part relief to the tune of Rs.44.40 lakhs in foregoing terms. There is no evidence as well in the case file rebutting the learned lower authorities findings to this effect. We thus affirm the impugned addition of Rs.12 lakhs in assessee’s hands. Ordered accordingly.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in the above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 12.12.2023.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →